Author
Topic: 5D Mark III Information [CR1] (Read 56963 times)

yeah but only those who ignore airy discs and other phenomens would make such a across the board statement.

The 7D's pixel pitch is smaller than the pixel pitch would be for a 36 MP FF sensor, and it yields resolution gains over 12 MP APS-C sensors at landscape apertures. I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.

Quote

most of my landscape shots are made with f16 and above for maximum DoF.and then the 21MP 5D MK2 is already diffraction limited.

the probelm is you donÂ´t understand what im saying.the diffraction limit of lenses makes it just MORE nonsense to ask for a 36MP FF sensor.

Not every landscape is shot at f/16 or f/22. Using hyperfocal focusing, T/S lenses, or focus stacking one can shoot at apertures which yield more detail.

Diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for the same desired FoV and DoF. I've spent 2 years getting a true 18 MP out of a 7D while shooting landscapes with near foreground objects, typically just by using nothing more complicated than hyperfocal focusing. That means I could get a true 45 MP just as often out of FF if such a sensor was available. Canon's T/S lenses open even more opportunities for shooting at optimum apertures yet having everything in focus from very near to infinity.

I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:

* Always less than the weakest part of the system.

* Comes closer to approaching the weakest part as other parts increase.

If your lens MTF50 resolution is 60 lpmm and your sensor is 80 lpmm, final resolution will always be <60 lpmm, but increasing sensor resolution even further will actually help you get closer to 60 lpmm.

Resolution is also an MTF curve, not a single number, and modern software is exceptionally good at increasing MTF in post (sharpening). So if you're theorizing about maximum MP's from a sensor based on MTF50 numbers for a lens, you are way off what's possible.

Thanks! Agreed this is the straight dope summary. I almost sh@t a brick at this CR1 rumor, then watched the video of the C300 below and got super excited about super high ISO. Then I remembered that I suck at video production and prefer taking stills. Back to being pissed off about how Canon are somehow now afraid of megapixels. Grrr. I smell Canon marketing sh!t and we're all about to step in it.

After painfully wading thru this, I think I can sum it up for those of you who start at the end:

Anyone who wants more megapixels than "me" is an idiot and doesn't understand picture quality.Anyone who wants fewer MP than "me" doesn't do real photography.Ansel Adams still rocks.

Best summary ever. Especially for a three sentence CR1 rumor.

Seriously people, it's a rumor, not a spec sheet.

Yup, but even looking at the 1Dx and the rhetoric of consolidating the 1D line, there it this uneasy feeling of a shift away from what a landscape photographer might want. That's why any post like the OP hits some raw nerves. One reason I decided to buy a 5DII recently, rather than wait any longer for the mythical Mk III. Even if the sensor makes most people happy or is much 'better' - whatever that means, I'll bet the functionality is no better for landscapes (or more precisely working on a tripod). Perhaps a somewhat better AF system - but for what? Sports? Action? - OK more/better AF points would be nice for shooting portraits at f1.4 but that's about it as far as I am concerned.

And sod the MP. There are good reasons to have 36MP and good reasons to have 12MP and everything in-between. But for a MkIII I don't see Canon sacrificing high ISO IQ in a 5D series camera. Wonder which one would get the best DxO score for the same technology?

Canon-F1

I'm not "ignoring airy disks", I'm telling you a 36 MP FF sensor will easily trump an 18 MP one for landscapes.

and how is that possible when you use small apertures?when you have a diffraction limit already for 21 megapixel FF sensors at f13.

lets say i want everything from 1m to infinity in focus (not uncommon for landscape images as i want foreground interest), even with hyperfocal distance i need f16 for a 24mm lens on a FF body.

Quote

I should also point out, since this discussion includes what is/is not the sweet spot of a lens, that the final resolution of any system is not bound in the way most people think. Most people think there's a fixed number for, say, a lens at a given aperture, and if that number is lower than the sensor number then that's the final resolution. Nope. I would have to look up the exact formula, but resolution is:

you canÂ´t resolve smaller details then the size of the airy circle.thatÂ´s simple, no need to discuss this.and that maximum has nothing to do with lens quality or other things... itÂ´s pure physics.lens quality will only reduce this maximum of possible resolution.

so if you make your pixels smaller then this airy circle and you use a aperture where the airy circle is bigger ... you gain nothing then useless data.

They're not just nice, they work. If I could buy a 36 MP DSLR and a T/S lens and consistently produce larger, more detailed prints then I can now for less then I would have to spend on a MF body alone, why wouldn't I?

And again I will point out that diffraction does not hit any format more than any other, and I don't often jump through special hoops to get the full 18 MP out of APS-C. That means I could be getting 45 MP out of FF if it was available.

DoF calculator shows f/11 would just work with a focus distance of 5.7 ft. In the field it's not always possible to be so precise so you would probably be at f/13 for that example. But it is an extreme example.

Quote

what i think is that the "leaves counter" are to enthusiastic when it comes to more MP. itÂ´s not as if you get the 36MP for free.

dealaddict

Although I like it to be 18MP, I find it hard to believe. In fact, i don't think Canon will "go backwards" to put a sensor with less resolution than today. I think at the minimum, they will keep it the same. Unless they want to reduce the resolution to increase the burst rate, which also unlikely IMO. I think the weakest link of the 5D2 compared to Nikon D700 is the AF. If Canon can keep resolution the same, improve the high ISO noise further, and improve the AF, then it is good for me.

I still don't understand the people who are saying that putting Auto Focus into movie mode will make it's way into Hollywood, and make the role of a focus puller redundant. In films you need to have someone pulling focus because the focal point often changes within the one shot, how can auto focus know when to pull from person A to person B when it's their turn to be in focus? Unless it all becomes electronic and you can pull focus without actually turning the focus ring, you would still need someone to select the focal point, which wouldn't get rid of a focus puller, just change the way they do things.

gene_can_sing

There's no substitue for a good manual focus pull, especially in Cinema. It would be hard for a computer to replicate

With that said, Auto focus in video has it's place also. For example, I was doing this macro video shot of these little crabs running around. It was really had to manually focus because they were moving so fast. That's when autofocus might be a benefit.

I usually shoot my 7D around f1.4-5.6. If shooting landscape, I may shoot 8-11. But that is it. I really don't need to shoot super high f-stops unless I want to (waterfalls at day time with a polarizer...)

The point very simply is, that I really do need cropping power, and the more the merrier. 24-28mp would be the jam! Those who don't want that big a file can shoot mRaw! And those who want smaller mp count do have a D300s available...

There's an aspect to the DoF problem that I've forgotten to mention - there's software around that can merge photos that are focused on different objects in the same scene into a single photo. I've yet to try it, but it's on my todo list.

This is the focus equivalent of HDR - focus on multiple points in the same scene that would otherwise not be in focus and merge multiple photos. Some setups are even able to power the lens' point of focus so that the focus is step'd and layers of in-focus imagery returned.

i guess canon engineers know it better then forum members and thats why they choose 18MP.

I doubt very much that it was Canon engineers that chose 18MP.

The 1DX appears to have been created to fit a market and in doing so, I'll wager that Canon's marketing arm did their home work and talked to lots of photographers, for whom the 1DX is aimed at, to find out what they want in a camera.